Motion to Dismiss Lack of probable Cause
based on – Lack of Territorial jurisdiction
Sec. 839.1.a (1)
People V. Landis 2007 – 68 Cal. Rpt 3d
267
I beg the indulgence of this court, to hear the defense motion to dismiss the charges that
make up this case and this case in its entirety. Motion based on the California Penial
Code - Sec. 991.
Legal Ground for Dismissal:
1. Cal. Penial Code 839.1.a (1`) Officer in this case was outside his political
Subdivision/Territorial Jurisdiction that employ the peace officer.
2. People V. Landis 2007 – 68 Cal. Rep. 3d 267 – 268
a) When the Authority of an officer to arrest falls outside his or her powers to
arrest, when acting beyond his or her geographic area his or her authority is the
same as that is conferred upon a private citizen.
b) The citation issued to the defendant for failure to stop at a red light outside the
officers Territorial Jurisdiction was not proper as a citizen arrest, because
defendant was not taken to magistrate or to other police officer as required by
law.
Facts Are as Followers: On January 5 th 2021, at about 7:45 PM, an incident is alleged to
took place at the Los Angeles County, Grand Park: which is managed by the Los Angeles
County Music Center. For which, the city employees, of the City of Los Angeles, showed
up. These city employees, were assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).
Defendant knew these city workers, were assigned to the LAPD because of the uniform
they wore.
The city workers, came and spoke to defendant Palmer, about an alleged incident that
alleged to took place; earlier that evening. Defendant Palmer did not feel any obligation
to speak to these workers, and so he did not.
As a result, the employees of the City of Los Angeles: declared they are going to arrest
Defendant Palmer.
After their declaration and against defendant Palmer’s will and wishes; Defendant
Palmer’s person and property were searched: violating his privacy.
The LAPD assigned city workers, put the defendant in hand cuff, place him in an LAPD
vehicle, took the defendant to the police station, then to the Los Angeles City Police
Holding, where the defendant was, booked in (finger printed, photographed). the
defendant was also taken to be examined by the facility medical practitioner. Defendant
Palmer refused medical examinations.
After which, defendant Palmer person was searched once again, then he was placed in a
cell for several hours. After spending several hours in a cell, defendant Palmer was
served with a citation and released.
This case is the culmination of the forgoing events, for which the defendant is requesting
this court to dismiss.
Reason for dismissal point #1:
The California Penial code, which the Los Angeles Police Department personnel are
sworn to enforce; and which give them the authority to act clearly set out the perimeters
for the institution like the LAPD to operate.
Sec. 830.1.a (1) restricts the Los Angeles Police Department personnel from
operating outside their political subdivision or territorial Jurisdiction, which not only
entails: those areas, that are physically outside its city limits. But also entails, those
streets, buildings, parks, other properties and facilities that are own by another political
subdivisions, that is within the city limits of the City of Los Angeles. Which will include
County, State and Federal, buildings, parks, properties and other facilities.
Therefore the arrest charge and prosecution of defendant Palmer on County own property
is an unlawful act by the Los Angeles Police Department personnel.
According to Sec. 830.1.a. of the California Penal Code, the instrument that gives the City
of Los Angeles, Police Department personnel; their authority to act; Sub Sec (3)
stipulates under what conditions a Peace Officer may lawfully act in a law enforcement
capacity; outside their Territorial Jurisdiction/Political Subdivision.
Sec.830.1.a (3) of the California Penal Code. states: In the case, where such peace officer
witnessed, a public offence, and have reasons to believe, a public offence was committed,
with respect to which there is an immediate danger, to person or property, or of the
escape of the perpetrator of the offence.
According to the information outlined in the discoveries of the prosecutions, none of the
conditions, which would have given, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department,
the authority to arrest defendant Palmer was present.
Therefore, the actions of the city to arrest, charge and now attempting to prosecute
defendant Palmer is unlawful, and this action should be dismissed.
Reason for dismissal point #2:
Another reason why this court should dismiss this case, is base of the California Appeal
Courts ruling in Prople V Landis 68 Cal. Rep, 3d 267.
In peoples V. Landis the California appeal court in addressing the legality of a similar
matter rule, that the offers operating outside his territorial jurisdiction, had the same
powers of that which is conferred upon an ordinary citizen.
This simply means the power of the Los Angeles Police Department employees, at the
time, date and place of arrest of defendant Palmer, was no greater than that of the
defendant himself. And therefore, their actions, in arresting the defendant was
unlawful. Only because, they did not hand the defendant over to the law enforcement
authority, that had jurisdiction over the defendant for his alleged breach of the peace;
Which was needed to properly effect a citizen’s arrest. As outlined in People V. Landis
This to is also valid reason, for this court to dismiss this case in its entirety.
It must be brough to this court’s attention, the unlawful arrest of defendant Palmer,
saw the city employees, who are assigned to the Los Angeles Police Department,
violated defendant’s constitutional right that was provided by the California
Constitution: article 1 of the California constitution sec. 13, which protects Defendant
Palmer’s rights from unlawful/unreasonable search and seizure. As well as the
constitution of the United States of America.
The entire process of booking defendant Palmer into the jail was unlawful process,
and was in violation of Defendant Palmer’s constitution rights as it protected by the
California constitution and the constitution of the United States of America.
Defendant in this case request that this court, with immediate effect, dismiss this case.
For to delay the dismissal of this case; is to deny the defendant of justice; and to
compound the injuries the unlawful acts of the LAPD personnel have so unlawfully
inflicted upon the defendant in this case.
Just in case
To lend clarity to a mostly misconstrued section of section 830.1.a is sub section 3.
Which speaks of the granting of permission. This only applies to the holding or
prisoners: who were remanded into custody or sentence to do time in jail. These
facilities are often facilities that are own and operated by a political entity that is
different from the political entity that established the law enforcement agencies that
arrested and prosecute the person, need to be held over in custody upon remand, to do
time or to facilitate an overflow of a holding facility in a political subdivision. An
example of this is the Los Angeles County Jail. County Property operated by County
Peace officers.
Dated this 22 nd day of January, 2025
Allan H. F. Palmer
Defendant in Pro Per
No comments:
Post a Comment